Why do thirds seem to be universally looked down upon as lazy no matter the subject.

As many as two in three students are failing to complete some maths degree courses
and unlike many corses there is a fairly even spred between the number of graduats with 3rds 2:2s 2:1s and a 1st in mathmatics.you will score nothing if you know nothing and score about 50% on a 3 page long question if you know exactly how to do it but make a mistake. I received a third 49% studying joint maths and physics I had 30 module 28 mostly exam based some with 2 parts and exams all in 3 years considerably more than any other non maths based degree iv seen. The pay grade for maths is higher in teaching. But when it's something considering your ability to learn a third is still seen as worse even if the fail rate is higher than the fail rate + the number under a 2:1 from other degree courses.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2001/mar/13/highereducation.accesstouniversity

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Evening

Wrong forum to ask this in. Also because getting a third is worthless.

Reply 2

alex_cs

Well, lazy or stupid. :biggrin:

Reply 3

Underscore__

Because it's a third, you scraped a pass. It gives the impression you were either very lazy or just unintelligent

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 4

Major Zero

It's because you spent three (sometimes even more) years studying a subject or two only to end up with a pass. You'd have to be either stupid or lazy to achieve that, if you had no severe mitigating circumstance to explain why you only got a pass after three years.

Reply 5

Jammy Duel

To just repeat what has been said, because it's so easy. At most universities (pretty much any bar the top few) an able candidate should be able to get a third without even going to lectures and learning the course the day before/morning of the exam

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 6

TorpidPhil

Original post by Jammy Duel

that's ridiculous.

Reply 7

Profesh

Because no reputable institution will extend an offer to anyone not considered intellectually capable of attaining a 2.1; and because the ubiquity of said classification in a market already saturated with graduates has rendered even a 2.2 classification virtually worthless.

Reply 8

Jammy Duel

Original post by TorpidPhil

that's ridiculous.

What is? The suggestion it happens or the fact it does?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 9

Lady Comstock

Original post by Profesh

There are SO many successful ppl with 2.2s...............

Reply 10

Profesh

Original post by Lady Comstock

There are SO many successful ppl with 2.2s...............

Yes, but exponentially fewer than with 2.1s; and Thirds, fewer still.

Reply 11

Lady Comstock

Original post by Profesh

Yes, but exponentially fewer than with 2.1s; and Thirds, fewer still.

i think a 2.2 shows ur a bit out of the box, and that u didn't spendall ur days studying in the library. i think it might appeal to modern, innovative employers.

Reply 12

wiseCrack

Original post by Iam3cats

A 3rd is like 9 grams, brudda!

all me is got is an 8th, you lucky

Reply 13

Jammy Duel

Original post by Lady Comstock

There are SO many successful ppl with 2.2s...............

How many of those people for their degrees recently when lower classes weren't worth the paper they're written on and how many got them when going to uni was largely restricted to the intelligent and those going into professional careers?

Also, how many needed the degree to be so successful? For example, if every professional footballer had a third class degree, or even no honours, then that would put a massive skew on average earnings by classification, not least because ordinary degrees and third class degrees barely exist today, for reasons unrelated to the degree.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 14

Lord Samosa

Original post by Lady Comstock

i think a 2.2 shows ur a bit out of the box, and that u didn't spendall ur days studying in the library. i think it might appeal to modern, innovative employers.

What the actual **** :rofl:

you don't need to give up your social life to get a first or 2:1. Just be able to have good time management, which is something a lot of employers look for.

Reply 15

Profesh

Original post by Lady Comstock

i think a 2.2 shows ur a bit out of the box, and that u didn't spendall ur days studying in the library. i think it might appeal to modern, innovative employers.

It can: but most candidates would in that event be expected to reel off a plethora of credentials supporting the notion that their time at university was otherwise occupied productively—SU Vice-President, Champion Debater, Chess Grandmaster, and so forth—comprehensively referenced, alongside a range of transferrable skills acquired and honed during those three, financially-crippling years. By itself, a 2.2 indicates nothing except that you were statistically among the least-able twenty percent of your academic cohort; and at a time when roughly fifty-percent of school leavers are expected to attend university, the onus will be upon the graduate to prove they can sufficiently transcend that herd.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 16

El Salvador

Because it's a very, very bad result.

Reply 17

El Salvador

Original post by Lady Comstock

There are SO many successful ppl with 2.2s...............

From decades ago when it was a lot more difficult to get into any university.

Original post by Lady Comstock

i think a 2.2 shows ur a bit out of the box, and that u didn't spendall ur days studying in the library. i think it might appeal to modern, innovative employers.

No, it doesn't show any of that. You'd need to have other evidence to demonstrate that. A 2:2 shows that you either were unable to do well academic in this discipline under these circumstances or you didn't bother enough to, and nothing more. If you're 'out of the box' and innovative or whatever, other things will be able to show that (eg a patent), not a 2:2 degree.

Reply 18

doodle_333

isn't a third about 40%? if you get a third you don't even know half of your degree content, that's pretty poor in my opinion... if you are getting grades that low you are either lazy or shouldn't be doing the course you are on - either way why would an employer look favourably on you for it when such a huge number of people are able to gain reasonable qualifications?

as for some courses being harder, yes of course they are, you have to really **** up on an essay course to get 40% or less whereas you can just get 0 on things in Maths as you said, however, if you are not capable of your course you shouldn't be doing it, a 3rd in maths/physics etc is not impressive at all, it being a tough subject doesn't outweigh the poor performance

Reply 19

Mr JB

Original post by Lady Comstock

i think a 2.2 shows ur a bit out of the box, and that u didn't spendall ur days studying in the library. i think it might appeal to modern, innovative employers.

No it doesn't. The people at my university who got 2:2's, well those I know of, deserved them due to laziness, lack of self-motivation and a lack of organisation. Why would any employer want someone like that? I would never ever employ someone like that.